Background: Serial interpretation of lung volumes requires assessing both reliability and agreement. We examined these properties in a historical clinical dataset. Methods: This retrospective secondary analysis included 72 participants, excluding seven same-session pre/post-bronchodilator pairs. The primary analysis used 19 separately dated pairs labelled pre-bronchodilator at both examinations; the expanded 65-pair analysis was exploratory. Documented intervals were two to three days; the investigator retrospectively confirmed separate-day examinations within six days for all 65 pairs. Total lung capacity (TLC) and residual volume (RV) were principal outcomes; functional residual capacity was secondary and available in the same 19 participants. Analyses included two-way mixed-effects, absolute-agreement, single-measure intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient, Gaussian reference limits, empirical difference quantiles, and leave-one-out analyses. Results: Fourteen primary participants had recorded chronic obstructive pulmonary disease labels without independently verified diagnostic post-bronchodilator spirometry. Primary TLC and RV ICCs were 0.947 (95% bootstrap confidence interval 0.838–0.988) and 0.940 (0.818–0.974), respectively. Mean second-minus-first differences were −0.033 and −0.015 L, with Gaussian reference limits of −0.964 to 0.898 L and −0.934 to 0.904 L, respectively. Corresponding empirical 2.5th–97.5th percentiles were −1.122 to 0.641 L and −0.875 to 0.803 L. Removing one observation reduced the standard deviation of paired differences by up to 28.8% for TLC and 14.8% for RV. Conclusions: High reliability estimates coexisted with appreciable paired variation. Unverified technical quality and clinical stability preclude attributing this variation solely to measurement error or establishing clinical response thresholds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Izzo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: